Recently, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner, questioning the Order dated 02.12.2023 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge. The court held that confirmation of a sale does not always require a separate order and may be deemed if no application is filed within the stipulated time.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner was the defendant in a suit for recovery of money due under a registered mortgage deed dated 14.05.2009. The final decree was issued on 07.05.2022 for auctioning the mortgaged property. The respondent, being the highest bidder in the auction held on 17.04.2023, paid the bid amount within the stipulated time. The petitioner sought to deposit the decretal amount, but this was dismissed as time-barred under Article 127 of the Limitation Act. Subsequently, he filed another application under Order 34 Rule 5 CPC, seeking to redeem the mortgage by depositing the amount with an additional 5% on the auction price. This application was returned by the trial court, and after being re-presented following a High Court direction, it was again dismissed. The present revision petition was filed, challenging this dismissal.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that under Order 34 Rule 5 CPC, the petitioner had a right to redeem the mortgage before the confirmation of sale. Since an application for payment was filed on 04.08.2023, before the sale confirmation, the trial court should have allowed the petitioner to deposit the amount. It was argued that the limitation period under Article 127 of the Limitation Act did not apply to applications under Order 34 Rule 5 CPC.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel for the respondent opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner had initially filed an application under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC, which was dismissed on 21.08.2023 after a full contest. The petitioner only re-presented his second application under Order 34 Rule 5 CPC after this dismissal, and by that time, the sale had already been confirmed. It was contended that the confirmation of sale does not require a separate order if no application is filed within the prescribed time.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that under Order 34 Rule 5 CPC, a judgment debtor intending to redeem the mortgage must do so before the confirmation of sale.
The Court observed that the limitation period prescribed under Article 127 of the Limitation Act, which provides 60 days for setting aside a sale, also applies to applications under Order 34 Rule 5 CPC. The court emphasized that the purpose of Article 127 is to ensure consistency in court sales, and allowing indefinite delays in confirmation of sale would create uncertainty. The Court said that confirmation of sale need not always be a separate order. Under Order 21 Rule 92 CPC, if no application is filed within the limitation period, the sale may be deemed confirmed.
Decision of the Court:
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, dismissing the revision petition, held that the sale conducted on 17.04.2023, its confirmation on 21.08.2023, and the issuance of the sale certificate were legally valid.
Case Title: Munaga Venkateswarlu vs. Yarava Tirupathi Reddy
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Nyapathy Vijay
Case No.: C.R.P. No. 3392 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi
Advocate for the Respondent: Sri M.R.S. Srinivas
